If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Bad Astronomy > Bad Astronomy: The Book
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 30-November-2006, 07:57 AM
Eroica's Avatar
Eroica Eroica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubh Linn
Posts: 3,610
Default What Makes Meteors Shine?

I am currently reading Meteors and Meteorites: Origins and Observations by Martin Beech (2006), a very interesting guide written with the serious amateur in mind. His description of what happens when a meteor-producing meteoroid passes through the Earth's atmosphere is at odds with what Phil writes in the book:

Quote:
When a meteoroid begins to encounter molecules in the Earth's upper armosphere, at about 300km up, it becomes heated through direct surface collisions - essentially the kinetic energy of any colliding molecules is converted into heat energy at the surface of the meteoroid. The meteoroid will continue to heat up until a surface temperature of about 2,000°C is reached. Once this temperature has been achieved, typically at an altitude of about 115km, material will begin to ablate from the meteoroid's surface, producing a trailing wake of electrons and atoms in an excited or ionized state. At this stage the meteoroid is beginning to lose mass and is also beginning to gradually slow down. Collisions between meteoric ions and atmospheric atoms result in the production of a plasma trail behind the meteoroid. The excited atoms in the plasma trail will eventually lose energy through the emission of photons, and the electrons will also eventually recombine with the ions to produce more photons. It is the emission of these photons that produces a meteor's light. Spectroscopic observations of meteor trails indicate that it is mainly atoms and ions from the meteoroid that produce the observed light - Martin Beech
Quote:
When the meteoroid enters the upper reaches of the Earth's atmosphere, it compresses the air in front of it. When a gas is compressed it heats up, and the high speed - perhaps as high as 100 kilometers per second - of the meteoroid violently shocks the air in its path. The air is compressed so much that it gets really hot, hot enough to melt the meteoroid. The front side of the meteoroid - the side facing this blast of heated air - begins to melt. It releases different chemicals, and it's been found that some of these emit very bright light when heated. The meteoroid glows as its surface melts, and we see it on the ground as a luminous object flashing across the sky. The meteoroid is now glowing as a meteor.

... In reality, there is actually very little friction between the meteoroid and the air. - Philip Plait
It would be nice to know a few more details about those meteoroid chemicals that glow when heated. Phil's description is a little vague at this point.
__________________
- There must be a new moon out, she said. He's always bad then.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 30-November-2006, 08:00 PM
Fazor's Avatar
Fazor Fazor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Near Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 3,873
Default

I had always been taught the first explination. But when I used that in a reply to someone's question, was told that I was wrong and that the combustion was actually caused by the second explination. Since these two ideas are at odds, I think maybe i'll just say it's some huge government/NASA coverup and that it's actually being shot by an alien defense lazer beam they set up to save us from unhealthily large meteor impacts. (not all aliens want to kill us, duh).

okay but seriously, which statement above is correct? or is it like so many other things, and it's a little of each?
__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 30-November-2006, 08:11 PM
Jeff Root Jeff Root is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 3,342
Default

The heating definitely starts out as direct collisions between the
meteoroid and the air. At some point, gas-gas collisions are likely
to predominate, but I'd like to see some kind of support for that
idea.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"The other planets?
Well, they just happen to be there, but the point of rockets is to explore them!"
-- Kai Yeves
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 01-December-2006, 08:18 AM
ozark1 ozark1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 319
Default

You could consider how big these meteors are. If the light emission profile had anything to do with the vapourising chemicals, most meteors would be very dim indeed.

Most meteors are the same colour - green/yellow - which is consistent with the glow of an oxygen/nitrogen plasma (first explanation). Very big meteors/fireballs do get a red head - which is the second explanation.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-December-2006, 05:27 AM
The Bad Astronomer's Avatar
The Bad Astronomer The Bad Astronomer is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Posts: 6,932
Default

For my book I talked with John Lewis, who wrote "Rain of Iron and Ice" and is an expert on such things. As I recall (the conversation was like 7 years ago now) direct collisions are what start things off, but as soon as a shock wave builds up you get a standoff shock a few meteroid radii in front (so if it's pea-sized, it's a few cm in front). The heat ionizes the air, and there was one particular chemical (I don't recall which one) that recombines and glows very brightly.

I think that meteor spectra show the presence of ionized air and ablated meteoroid material.
__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-December-2006, 07:56 AM
ozark1 ozark1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 319
Default

Could try here http://www.asu.cas.cz/~borovic/leonid.htm

Pretty well shows the green oxygen line, various atmospheric lines and some Fe from the meteor. I'm not sure where the Na/Mg comes from but it is significant to the light intensity
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-December-2006, 08:14 AM
Eroica's Avatar
Eroica Eroica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubh Linn
Posts: 3,610
Default

Thanks, Phil. That clarification certainly brings the two explanations closer together. From reading your book, I understood that recombination of ionized atoms was not an issue - the word "ionization" is not mentioned - but clearly it is a crucial factor.

The only significant discrepancy between the two explanations, so far as I can see, is that Beech fails to acknowledge the compression of air in front of the meteoroid (and the creation of an associated standoff shock) as the principal source of heat. Both explanations attribute the light to recombination fo ionized atoms, and both identify meteoroid material (as opposed to atmospheric atoms) as the principal source of that light.
__________________
- There must be a new moon out, she said. He's always bad then.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-December-2006, 08:20 AM
Eroica's Avatar
Eroica Eroica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubh Linn
Posts: 3,610
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozark1 View Post
Could try here http://www.asu.cas.cz/~borovic/leonid.htm

Pretty well shows the green oxygen line, various atmospheric lines and some Fe from the meteor. I'm not sure where the Na/Mg comes from but it is significant to the light intensity
From the abstract:

Quote:
Relative bulk abundances of Mg, Fe, Ca, and Na in Leonids are nearly CI-chondritic within the uncertainty of the method (factor of three). Smaller meteoroids tend to be poorer in sodium, which is true also for Perseids. Most meteoric vapor emissions could be reasonably well explained with the temperature of 4500 K. High temperature meteoric emissions (Ca+, Mg+) are present only in bright meteors. Leonid spectra are very rich in atmospheric emissions of O, N, and N2 – even at high altitudes and in faint meteors. These emissions are therefore not connected with meteor shock wave.
__________________
- There must be a new moon out, she said. He's always bad then.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-December-2006, 02:58 PM
Eroica's Avatar
Eroica Eroica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubh Linn
Posts: 3,610
Default

An update:

Quote:
That meteors produce emission line spectra indicates that the light we detect from them must be derived from a hot gas, and not from an incandescent solid body (although the atoms and molecules that make up the meteor "gas" do of course come from the meteoroid itself) ... It is clear that the emission lines are derived from a hot gas, at a temperature of about 4,000°C, that surrounds the ablating meteoroid. Emission lines from many diverse atoms and molecules have been observed in meteor spectra. In most spectra the strongest lines are due to the so-called H and K lines of ionized calcium, and lines due to sodium and magnesium. Spectra obtained from very-high-speed meteoroids (such as those that produce Leonid meteors) also show emission lines due to atmospheric oxygen atoms [O] and nitrogen molecules [N2].
__________________
- There must be a new moon out, she said. He's always bad then.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 15-February-2007, 01:12 AM
hhEb09'1's Avatar
hhEb09'1 hhEb09'1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC USA
Posts: 7,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eroica View Post
An update:
Quote:
(although the atoms and molecules that make up the meteor "gas" do of course come from the meteoroid itself)
So, it would appear, that it is the meteor itself glowing, not the atmospheric gases that it compresses.

PS: maybe we can get an opinion from the resident heliochromologist?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Please watch for meteors around 7 June Kiwi Astronomy 33 12-July-2004 07:50 AM
Recent possible 'large' meteors in California and elsewhere Psionyx Astronomy 2 06-June-2004 10:58 AM
Audible Meteors Krevel Against the Mainstream 6 19-February-2004 12:52 PM
Green Meteors Psionyx Against the Mainstream 17 19-February-2004 01:54 AM
Eye damage from observing meteors? Marjorie Astronomy 37 28-October-2003 05:07 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today